Some thoughts on the Pope,western phronema, & Orthodox Doctrinal Development

Ben of the Undercroft has posted an interesting essay on an often undiscussed aspect of the Rome Orthodox reunion debate. We Orthodox tend to spend a great deal of time discussing what changes the Latins will have to make for reunification to occur. But we frequently ignore the reality of the current situation in the West. And that reality is that the Roman Catholic Church has become to a certain degree dependent on a strong centralized administration for government. As I noted in a post on this subject a long time ago over in Free Republic; Rome having decided to ride the tiger may find it hard to dismount without injury.

The West largely lacks what we would call an Orthodox phronema. The Latin sensus fidei if you will has become severely eroded. The idea that Rome could just snap its fingers and become Orthodox in its ecclesiology is naive. The Roman Church has over the course of a thousand years become very dependent on the power of the papacy. Given the disciplinary and theological chaos now rampant in the Roman Catholic Church, a reasonable argument could be made that the Latin Church would suffer significant harm if it were not for a powerful papacy. Ben makes the point well in his essay.

I can think of several Roman bishops and at least one cardinal here in the United States who I strongly suspect would be ordaining women and marrying same gender couples the day after the Pope renounced his universal and absolute jurisdiction over the church. I can’t say that about any Orthodox hierarchs. Again this comes down to sensus fidei. When was the last time a Roman Catholic bishop called one of his brothers a heretic (excepting the schismatic Lefebvrists)? Has that happened in my lifetime? If so I am unaware of it. I think this is in part due to the subserveint role that Latin bishops have been relegated to in the Roman ecclesiology. This is alien to Orthodoxy. The faith in the Orthodox Church is not the property of just one supreme bishop. It is the property of The Church as a whole including even the laity. And in that context it has been jealously guarded for a thousand years.

I have occasionally asked Orthodoxy's critics for an explanation for its remarkable theological stability in various forums and discussions. Generally I don’t get much in the form of a response. Fr. Kimel (I am going to have get used to the new/old title) however gave a brief glimpse of his thinking on the subject in his comment on Ben’s article. He is rather dismissive of Orthodoxy’s lack of doctrinal development, attributing it to the historic conditions of the Orthodox Church under Ottoman and Communist oppression. This is in my opinion both an historically weak argument and also a double edged one that could cut the other way with equal force.

First the Orthodox world has never been completely under the heal of oppression. The (Eastern) Roman Empire lasted up until the XV century before its final collapse. And the Ottoman Empire had lost much of its grip on traditionally Orthodox lands by the end of the XIX century. It was not until 1918 that the Communists became a great power and threat to the Church. And while the injury done was great (we will never know the number of martyrs but certainly they are in the millions), the Communist yoke was from an historical point of view rather short lived. Other than that bloody space of roughly three quarters of a century the Russian Church was never directly repressed on a large scale.[1]

Depending on when you date Rome's departure an argument can be made that the Orthodox Church enjoyed at least moderate freedom for more than half of the period since the schism and in the case of Russia almost the entire post schism period less the heart of the XX century. Additionally, during this time there were some fairly long periods in certain locals where Ottoman rule was relatively tolerant of Christianity. Add to this the combination of a lack of central authority and the autonomous national churches and you have what should be a recipe for one schism after another.

And yet in the eight or so centuries since Rome’s departure there have been no significant schisms in the Orthodox Church over matters of faith. Nor has there been any major reinterpretation or “doctrinal development” of the faith. When one examines the totality of historical circumstances and also the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church (which at a casual glance bears a frightening similarity to Anglicanism) the above statement becomes truly astonishing.

The inverse of Fr. Kimel’s argument of course is that one could look at a great deal of the development of Latin doctrine especially in relation to the Petrine ministry and see powerful links to the historical and political circumstances then present in the West. I alluded to this in a previous discussion over at Sacramentum Vitae.[2] Fr. Kimel also appears to date ultramontanism from the First Vatican Council.[3] To say that Fr. Kimel’s dating shocked me would be putting it mildly. The language of the decrees of Vatican I is the epitome of moderation compared to some of the pretensions to papal power and prerogatives which preceded it. One need only glance at the wording of the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII for evidence of this.[4] One may indeed look as far back as the remarkable claims of St. Leo the Great, pointed out to me in a gentle but well aimed rebuke to one of my earlier posts by Dr. William Tighe.[5]

On one point I am in strong agreement with Father Kimel. The East has suffered from its estrangement from the Christian West. This tragic truth is undeniable. But again this cuts both ways. In its isolation from her sister churches and the theological phronema of the East following the schism, Rome had virtually no restraints or temporizing influence on its ambitions and claims. And there was no effective counterbalance to the rise of the scholastics which wreaked so much havoc theologically in the Latin Church. Nor was the isolation of the East as complete as Fr. Kimel seems to imply. Russia, especially from the time of Czar Peter (the not so great), was heavily exposed to all things western. And yet the Russian Church seems to never have seriously considered reunion with Rome. This was certainly not for want of exposure. Exposure was everywhere as a result of Peter’s efforts to “modernize” Russia and also from the periodic invasions from Catholic Poland and other locals. Nor did Peter for all of his occidentophile tendencies attempt to force the Russian Church into any union with Rome. [6]

Fr. Kimel asserts that the Roman Catholic Church is more catholic as a result of its centralization. He correctly identifies the cafeteria style theology now prevalent in much of Europe and the United States as one of the major problems facing the Roman Catholic Church. However I would respectfully argue that the long term solution is not a papal monarchy but rather the restoration of an Orthodox phronema or sensus fidei to the faithful of the Western Church. A short term abandonment of the papal prerogatives is unrealistic given the present situation in the Western Church. However long term this would be the best course of action.

Despite the fairly chaotic jurisdictional soup that is the Orthodox Church today we share one faith. We may occasionally throw furniture at each other when someone mentions the word “calendar” but we still recite the same creed and no one is arguing for the ordination of women. Fr Kimel also comments on the centralized powers of the papacy… “This is the great advantage in possessing a divinely instituted center of unity: it keeps, as Stanley Hauerwas likes to quip, the Irish and Italians, the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits, in one Church.” Try keeping Greeks Russians Arabs and Serbs in one church without a central authority! There is no other way to explain that beyond the working of the Holy Spirit.

---

[1] Obviously there were exceptions on the fringes of the Russian state where territory traded hands as a result of wars and other occurrences.

[2] http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/choosing-apostolic-communions.html

[3] “I'm know that papalist positivism--whatever the Pope speaks is God's truth--characterized post-Vatican I Catholicism for a hundred years; but this certainly is no longer the case.” Fr. Al Kimel

[4] It is also worth noting that the aforementioned bull was issued at a time when the Holy See was involved in a highly political and nasty feud with Philip IV of France. Mere coincidence of course.

[5] http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/choosing-apostolic-communions.html comment 1

[6] In fairness this was as likely a political consideration as much as anything else.